Lieberman Won't Get the Jeffords Treatment from Obama
On Tuesday, Senate Democrats will decide the turncoat Joe Lieberman's fate as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. But whether Lieberman retains his chairmanship or even his place in the Democratic caucus, President-elect Barack Obama will apparently play little to no role. It's just another stark contrast with George W. Bush, whose campaign of retribution against Jim Jeffords in 2001 drove the Vermont Senator out of the Republican Party.
That some of Joe Lieberman's former colleagues are turning up the heat is clear. After the milquetoast Senators Evan Bayh and Amy Klobuchar called for Lieberman merely to apologize for his treachery, a growing chorus of voices is now calling for payback. Vermont's delegation of Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders insisted Lieberman must face real consequences for carrying John McCain's water. And on the eve of Tuesday's secret vote by Democrats on chairman Lieberman's fate, Byron Dorgan (D-ND) simply deemed the Connecticut Quisling's support for McCain and Republican Senate candidates unacceptable.
But one voice counseling restraint is that of Barack Obama. The man most impacted by Joe Lieberman's scurrilous attacks and scorched earth campaigning has announced he does not "hold any grudges."
To be sure, no one could fault Obama for seeking vengeance against the supposed independent Senator from the Nutmeg State. After all, Obama campaigned for Lieberman (at the Lieberman team's request) during his bitter reelection battle against Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic primary:
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."
Lieberman repaid Obama's support for him in 2006 by stabbing him in the back in 2008. Luckily for Joe Lieberman, Barack Obama is not George W. Bush.
When Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords bucked President Bush over his planned $1.6 trillion tax cut for the wealthy in 2001, Bush retaliated with the same vicious "politics of payback" that came to define his tenure in the White House. As I noted in 2004:
An early indication of the vindictiveness of this administration came with the saga of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords' defection from the GOP in 2001. This is a tale of double-retribution. First, Jeffords refused to back the Bush tax cut plan in 2001. As The New Republic reported in June 2001, the White House responded by gutting special education programs supported by Jeffords and by threatening the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact critical to the Vermont milk industry. To add insult to injury, the Bush team took the unprecedented step of not inviting Jeffords to a White House event honoring a teacher from Vermont. They even denied Jeffords' office White House tour passes for his constituents. His departure from the GOP seemed understandable then and now; his one-time colleagues of course are making his tenure as an independent a lonely one.
Like General Eric Shinseki, counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Medicare actuary Richard Foster and many more, Senator Jeffords paid the price for crossing George W. Bush and his Republican allies. When Jeffords in May 2001 declared himself an independent and temporarily turned control of the Senate over to the Democrats, Trent Lott (R-MS) called it "a coup of one" and groused, "There is only one person to blame for all this, and that's Jim Jeffords." Ironically, Joe Lieberman responded to Jeffords' joining the Democratic caucus by announcing:
"This is historic. It gives us the opportunity to set the agenda."
Ultimately, Jeffords was shunned by his Republican brethren and was even booted from the Singing Senators, a group of GOP colleagues which ironically included Idaho's Larry Craig. Ostracized and isolated by his former friends, Jeffords retired from the Senate in 2007.
As for Joe Lieberman, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would welcome him with open arms. After Lieberman's disgusting, cowardly betrayal of the Democratic Party, they can have him. Some principles are more important than a potential filibuster-proof majority on paper.
As for Barack Obama, he's apparently content to stay out of the imbroglio over Lieberman's fate. After all, the President-elect has bigger issues to worry about than expending time - and political capital - on the Benedict Arnold from Connecticut. Besides, payback just isn't his style. Like most Americans now, he's probably asked himself, "What would Dubya Do?" and decided on the reverse.
|
Well said. It's stunning that so few senators have spoken out as Dorgan, Sanders, and Leahy have. Evan Bayh looked like a total nitwit on Rachel Maddow's show the other night.
What gives with these people?
Posted by Apphouse50 on November 17, 2008 2:17 PM